EverQuest 2 Wiki talk:Policy/Strategies
Hmm. The alphabetical thing is a little confusing to me. Am I misreading this? It would seem to me that you'd want the strategies in order encountered within an instance. I should read through this more but I'll be commenting occasionally through the day as I think of things.--Kodia 16:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC) :That's something I can clarify. That part describes which named to pick to have the strategy section at all. For example, the Ludmila Kystov encounter in PR has 4 named monsters (and 2 non-named trash). To prevent duplication we need strategy only on one page. If all the nameds are equal and none is a clear leader, then I said either the user can pick or just pick the named monster who's name is first (if if the encounter is Alice and Bob, by that idea you'd put it on Alice's page and add the "go here" template to Bob's). I think I'll actually get rid of the bit about alphabetical and just leave it to user choice, and make it more clear what that particular section is detailing. --lordebon 16:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC) :Oh, and I probably should put something in there about instances... the instance base page should not contain strategy whatsoever, maybe just a listing of nameds/encounters with a link to the proper page. --lordebon 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ::Hmm. Now this is where you and I disagree. My personal opinion is that people go into an instance and do dual lookups. New raiding groups or groups new to raiding particular zones go to the zone page first and gradually go to the pages on the named mobs. Raiders familiar with a zone go to the named mobs more often but still visit the zone pages for refreshers. There's a place for both. There may be times when a summary strategy can exist for a zone. PR is still a good example here. With so many mobs in the zone, and with so much of the encounter scripted, it's really helpful to have a strategy on the zone itself. A really short version by way of example here would be "Enter the zone and start the script. Work clockwise around the skellies. Do Doomcoil (don't fail), then do Ludmilla's group, targetting Ludmilla last. Then go on to the final mobs." Having to bounce around from article to article for each of these would be a royal pita. Really royal pita. --Kodia 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC) :::Hmmm, that's true. I haven't specifically addressed those pages yet because it wasn't really discussed, but now is a good time. Allright, how about having those instance pages has short summaries of the facts of the encounter (ie some of the info that is on the mob's page in the strategy heading, but not the stuff thats on the subpage)? Ie you'd have Named Encounters Some Mob Next Mob and so on. Those pages are a grey area for me, since I don't really use them and so don't know how other folks use them. Would that sound decent? By "not contain strategy whatsoever" I was meaning more of the "My guild says pull to here, bring a coercer, do the hokey pokey, etc" kind of stuff that the subpages are for, not the hard information you really need for the encounter. --lordebon 18:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC) :::Bump to bring this back up above the radar. --lordebon 13:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Opinion I think the official policy about strategies is total bull. Splitting up info in too many places makes it a pita to read. You just dont have the time to switch between several pages during an instance. people are getting impatient. Also we should be lucky if people even post their strategies and not keep them secret as long as they please, so we shouldn't make it a pita for them to write about. I think the best place for ALL strategies (or Walkthroughs) is directly at the instance page, and not split it up into "confirmed" stuff and opinion either. If at one point in time info gets too much for one page (which I doubt) we can still move it to a better location. Rittmeister64 (talk) 10:40, November 23, 2012 (UTC) :The purpose of the policy was to address an issue we had at the time where people were posting lengthy overly detailed policies on mob pages and then having edit wars correcting each others' preferences. The bulk of the problem went away and thus the policy hasn't really been needed and never left "Draft" status. However, even then it specifically doesn't prevent posting strategies on the instance pages, it just says that it should be kept factual rather than personalized "what we do" type information. Either way, since the policy isn't implemented there's nothing to worry about. --lordebon (talk) 15:19, November 23, 2012 (UTC)